Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recliner wrote on 06 January 2012 15:59:16 ...
wrote in message On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000 wrote: wrote in message I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers a visit. Are they articulated? Does this look articulated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000 Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies. Some people use "articulated" to mean permanently connected cars with a wide interconnecting gangway, and others use the word to mean cars that have a shared bogie. Anyone using the word on this newsgroup should first define which definition they are using. On the Paris Métro all the trains from 1989 onwards have interconnecting gangways but conventional bogies. The only trains with shared bogies are the experimental MF88 on line 7bis; the bogies proved troublesome and were not used on later stocks. Incidentally the train referred to as "MF2000" is now known as MF01. I believe the overall train width on the Métro (latest trains) is about 2.45m, compared with London's subsurface Tube trains at around 2.9m and small tube stocks at around 2.6m. That surprises me, as the latest Paris trains feel much wider than a London deep tube. Maybe it's the difference in height that gives that impression. I suspect that the lack of wide gangways on 2009 stock is because Bombardier/Metronet could meet the terms of the PPP contract without them, and LU had no leverage under PPP to force any major design changes. LU are certainly now pursuing more radical design options for the replacement of 1972/73 stock, e.g. the Siemens offering described at http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/new...ept-train.html -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Are they articulated? They are reticulated. |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Richard J." wrote in message
Some people use "articulated" to mean permanently connected cars with a wide interconnecting gangway, and others use the word to mean cars that have a shared bogie. Anyone using the word on this newsgroup should first define which definition they are using. I was only aware of the shared-bogie definition of articulated trains. In my view, the other definition is simply a misunderstanding. On the Paris Métro all the trains from 1989 onwards have interconnecting gangways but conventional bogies. The only trains with shared bogies are the experimental MF88 on line 7bis; the bogies proved troublesome and were not used on later stocks. Incidentally the train referred to as "MF2000" is now known as MF01. The video I found certainly seems to show proper, articulated trains, with shared bogies. I suspect that the lack of wide gangways on 2009 stock is because Bombardier/Metronet could meet the terms of the PPP contract without them, and LU had no leverage under PPP to force any major design changes. LU are certainly now pursuing more radical design options for the replacement of 1972/73 stock, e.g. the Siemens offering described at http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/new...ept-train.html Yes, I agree that the PPP contract led to a timid, conventional design for the 2009 stock. LU had long been been pursuing the idea of articulated trains with open gangways for the replacement Victoria line stock (the 'Space train' -- http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenk1977/108328170/), but the misconceived PPP contract put the kibosh on it. |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 06/01/2012 12:48, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message Was there a particularly good reason not to do it? I can't think of any disadvantages. It was discussed at length here, last year I think. Basically, there isn't room in non-articulated small Tube stock. Future Tube stock may be articulated, and would then have open gangways. I always thought that was the initial plan, and was slightly surprised when I found out they were not walk through. |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 06/01/2012 15:59, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000 wrote: wrote in message I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers a visit. Are they articulated? Does this look articulated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000 Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies. They are. indeed. I have been on them. |
#17
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:49:28 +0000
" wrote: On 06/01/2012 15:59, Recliner wrote: wrote in message On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000 wrote: wrote in message I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers a visit. Are they articulated? Does this look articulated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000 Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies. They are. indeed. I have been on them. Perhaps next time you go you should take a closer look. They are not articulated, there are no shared bogies. B2003 |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:59:16 -0000
"Recliner" wrote: wrote in message On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:40:45 -0000 "Recliner" wrote: wrote in message I suppose then the fact that they've managed it on the Paris Metro who's loading gauge at 2.4m wide is even narrower than tube stock must be down to magic then? Perhaps Harry Potter paid the engineers a visit. Are they articulated? Does this look articulated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000 Yes, I think so. The wheels are certainly right at the end of the carriages, and appear to be on shared bogies. I suggest you see an optician. B2003 |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 15:57:45 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:48:51 on Fri, 6 Jan 2012, d remarked: Are they articulated? Does this look articulated? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_2000 Dunno, how could we tell? (Other than the absence of the word in the text for that page). Oh I dunno, try looking at the picture? Just a thought. B2003 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Walk-through trains | London Transport | |||
2009 Stock loading gauge | London Transport | |||
Bus noise (and why I too like bendy buses) | London Transport | |||
Victoria line 2009 stock customer feedback | London Transport | |||
2009 stock | London Transport |